Biblical Hebrew Forum

[K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com>]

Jerry:

On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:23 PM, Jerry Shepherd <jshepherd53 AT gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Karl,

 

First of all, I pretty much agrfee with Chavoux's observations.

 

Second, in reply to your question, "The reason for my question is how long a period after the return does he consider the “post-exilic period” and what all does he include with it?", my answer would be that in large measure I would put the entire Hebrew Bible here.  In addition to the books that Chavoux mentions, I believe that much, if not all, of the Hebrew Bible written before the exile was edited and updated, perhaps many of the changes being orthographic and vocalic.

Without evidence, I don’t see how you can make such a claim.

Personally, I think you’re all wet, but as that is a personal opinion with no malice intended, act like a duck and let it run off your back as irrelevant.

 

Third, when you say, "I've noticed a simpler use of the Hebrew language among those authors among the returnees after exile . . . and you can see the difference, at least I do," this is highly subjective -- not to mention the highly speculative decisions that have to be made with regard to dating.

These are the recorded dates in the books, other dates are speculative and a claim that the recorded dates are wrong. Again, where’s your evidence? 

 

Fourth, even if you are correct that Hebrew became at some point during this time a "special language learned for official and religious duties," this would actually be an argument that the pronunciation of biblical Hebrew became, as it were, "frozen in time," and handed down through the next generations or official scribes largely intact.

Not necessarily. There is more likelihood that the pronunciation changed when a “corrupted version” (Mishnaic Hebrew), was spoken. 

 

Finally, notice that all of the concession you've made in the last couple of posts take you very far from your original unnuanced assertion that "you can't trust the Masoretic points."

No concessions on my part, I don’t trust the Masoretic points. Period. But I also don’t hold to that straw-man perversion of my position of which people on this list accuse me. Never have. 

 

By the way, I'm still waiting for that Waltke-O'Connor documentation and the evidence for the "strike" in baseball coming from a different root.

I dont have a copy of Waltke & O’Connor, so I can’t look it up to give the exact page. The comment was under a reference to evidence of the language spoken in Canaan during the time of the Amarna Letters.

As for strike, there are words in other Germanic languages that refer to a line or mark, occasionally used as a negative mark against a person. If he gets enough of the negative marks, he’s out. Baseball still uses that meaning when referring to marks against a batter, if he gets three for a time up at bat, he’s out. If that baseball player hits 20 foul balls in a row, only two marks are counted against him. That shows that the “strike” against the batter is not for hitting the ball, but a negative count towards putting him out.

 

Blessings,

 

Jerry

 

Jerry Shepherd

Taylor Seminary

Edmonton, Alberta

jshepherd53 AT gmail.com

 

Karl W. Randolph.